Not "Regulation" but "Trust" Issue
Discussions around AI use in the game industry are no longer about "is it acceptable or not?" In recent European and North American game communities, the focus of questions is clearly moving: the core is not "Did you use AI?" but "To what extent and at what stage did you use it?" This change starts from major studio public statements and is expanding to store policies and awards criteria discussions. The Larian Studios case: the symbolic example showing this trend -- "Baldur s Gate 3" developer Larian Studios faced growing questions about generative AI use while preparing their next project; CEO Swen Vincke directly stated the position relatively early: "We use AI for initial ideation and internal reference only; all final art, writing, and acting is created by humans." The industry implications: store platforms are discussing to what extent AI use scope and nature must be indicated; awards ceremonies and competitions are considering AI intervention stage disclosure as a new evaluation criterion; particularly in indie or debut categories, this discussion operates more sensitively entangled with the question of how to fairly evaluate limited resources and creative autonomy. The question converges to one: no longer "Did you use AI?" but "How did you explain your AI use?" Larian Studios response was a studio-level answer to this question -- and Epic Games and Steam continue to develop their platform-level responses.
